Appeal No. 2000-1628
Application No. 09/163,013
suggested this modification either. Czernik’s control
material has the specific purpose of preventing destructive
compression of sealing patterns made of elastomeric material.
There are no such sealing patterns in the gaskets disclosed by
Kawaguchi and Yoshino. Although the Kawaguchi and Yoshino
gaskets do include sealing beads, they are made of metal, and
there is nothing in either reference indicating that such
beads might be subject to destructive compression. In this
light, it is evident that the only suggestion for the proposed
combinations of either Kawaguchi or Yoshino in view of Czernik
stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the
appellants’ own disclosure. Ohashi, the examiner’s fourth
reference, affords no cure for this deficiency in the basic
reference combinations.
Hence, the examiner’s determination that the subject
matter recited in claim 14, and in claims 15 through 18 which
depend therefrom, would have been obvious within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not well founded. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 14 through 16 and 18 as being unpatentable over
Kawaguchi in view of Czernik, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007